Hydrogen Breathers

When reading David Brin’s first three books in the Uplift universe, I was intrigued by the mention of hydrogen-breathers. There is not much about them because of limited interaction with the oxygen-breathing life-forms in the civilization of the Five Galaxies according to the books.

 

What does it mean to be a hydrogen-breather? Why or how are they different from oxygen-breathers? It turns out that, right here on planet Earth, there are organisms that make their living using hydrogen (H₂) as an energy source. They tend to be tiny micro-organisms living in anaerobic (“lack of free oxygen (O₂)”) conditions. Oxygen-breathers, on the other hand, come in all shapes and sizes on our planet from tiny bacteria to blue whales and networks of fungi. Is there something special about oxygen? Why yes! It’s a surprising molecule with an anomalously weak O=O double-bond, thus thermodynamically unstable, but is anomalously kinetically stable because of quantum mechanics!

 

But most importantly, because of the weak O=O bond, O₂ is a “high-energy” molecule that can react chemically to form “low-energy” molecules with stronger chemical bonds. The energy released in these chemical reactions can go towards, not just maintaining life, but growing it! Organisms got bigger and seemingly more complex (although bacteria are also complex) thanks to an oxygen-fueled metabolism that provides much more energy than practically anything else that isn’t too unstable. (Substances that are too unstable don’t hang around long enough!) On planet Earth we have established a remarkable symbiosis between oxygen-producing photosynthesis and oxygen-consuming respiration.

 

Let’s examine the energetics. The single H–H bond in H₂ is ~435 kJ/mol. Hence, two equivalents of H₂ would “store” ~870 kJ in its chemical bonds. The O=O double bond is ~500 kJ/mol. When two equivalents of H₂ react with one equivalent of O₂ to form two equivalents of water (chemically: 2 H₂ + 1 O₂ --> 2 H₂O), four O–H bonds are created, each worth ~460 kJ/mol. The net energy change in this reaction is 870 + 500 – 4(460) = –470 kJ, ignoring entropy and phase-changes. (Technically, this is the enthalpy, and the majority contributor.) The negative sign indicates that energy is released in this reaction. 2 H₂O is lower energy compared to 2 H₂ + 1 O₂ by 470 kJ. The lion’s share of this difference comes from the weak O=O bond. The H–H bond, while weaker than the O–H bond, is not substantially weaker. Counting bonds in pairs, this would be comparing 870 kJ to 920 kJ, or a 50 kJ difference. The O=O bond at 500 kJ is significantly weaker than the ~900 kJ of a H–H or O–H pair, and this difference accounts for most of the energy released.

 

If free O₂ is not present, organisms trying to make a living don’t have a good “high-energy” option that could serve as a fuel. I study the chemical origins of life, and the fundamental carbon input into the biochemistry of life is CO₂, at least on our planet. Carbon dioxide can be represented as O=C=O, i.e., it has two C=O bonds worth ~800 kJ each. A hydrogen-breather could carry out the following reaction: CO₂ + 4 H₂ --> CH₄ + 2 H₂O. The bond-energy analysis (with C–H being ~410 kJ/mol) yields a net energy change of –140 kJ, but this comes from breaking four pairs of bonds to make four new pairs. On a per pair basis, this would be a measly 35 kJ compared to the 235 kJ per pair from reacting H₂ with O₂.

 

You might quibble that I didn’t pick a good set of initial reactants, even though CO₂ and H₂ are the main entry points into building biomass at the origin-of-life here on planet Earth. You’d be hard-pressed to find a more reasonable starting point given the environmental conditions and what is available in sufficient supply. What about the choice of methane (CH₄) as the product? That’s what gives the highest energy output given the reactants. A number of microorganisms known as methanogens (e.g., inside cows) continue to perform this reaction for their energy needs. We humans think of methane (main component of “natural gas”) as a fuel, but for those hydrogen-breathing microorganisms trying to make a living, it’s a waste product. We think it’s a fuel because we can burn it in O₂ for energy. But methane is quite stable thermodynamically. It’s O₂ that’s “high-energy” and unstable – that’s the fuel!

 

Some oxygen-breathing micro-organisms can switch to anaerobic mechanisms when their oxygen fuel is in scarce supply. It’s almost as if they go into hibernation. Metabolism is slowed down considerably to require less energy to survive. I find this phenomena of cryptobiosis fascinating – it’s the strange boundary between life and death, a liminal space. What do you do if conditions are terrible and you’re trying to stay alive? Breathe hydrogen! If this idea intrigues you, a mini-review article by Morita (Microb. Ecol. 2000, 38, 307-320) that you might find interesting is titled “Is H₂ the Universal Energy Source for Long-Term Survival?”

 

What if environmental conditions were different? Perhaps on the cold moon of Titan orbiting Saturn where there are hydrocarbon oceans. To keep things simple and maintain the analogy with O=O and O=C=O, let’s consider the molecule C₂H₄ which has a C=C bond (615 kJ/mol) to break as an energy source. Then, for the reaction C₂H₄ + 2 H₂ --> 2 CH₄, the energy change would be –175 kJ. Given that four of the C–H bonds remain “intact” in this transformation, the exchange is two pairs of bonds or ~90 kJ per pair. Not as good as O₂ but better than CO₂. Whether you can generate a metabolism from hydrocarbons is less clear since we don’t yet understand proto-metabolism nor how to define it exactly. But astrobiologists can speculate. For a recent mini-review, see: “Out of Thin Air? Astrobiology and Atmospheric Chemotrophy” (Cowan, Ferrari, McKay, Astrobiology 2021, DOI: 10.1089/ast.2021.0066)

 

If there are hydrogen-breathers on alien worlds, they’d be hard pressed to thrive and grow with a lower chemical energy input, unless they are able to find some other source. Nitrogen oxides might work as higher-energy reactants, but they have other problems, and you might as well decompose them to N₂ and O₂ and then use the latter to fuel your metabolism. The F₂ bond is anomalously weak, but you’ll have problems recycling the fluorine and it’s also not as abundant in the universe as an element. Similar issues abound as you go to lower rows in the periodic table.

 

We think of life as being carbon-based, and there’s good reason for it in terms of the diversity of structures and types of chemical bonds with other abundant elements. (Tetravalent silicon has other limitations.) But the structural elements cannot be built without an energy source, and oxygen beats its rivals easily. Coupled with hydrogen, the most abundant element, and carbon may simply be a carrier for energy flux.

 

While we might not think of many organisms as hydrogen-breathers, ultimately it’s the coupling of hydrogen and oxygen that powers organisms like us humans on planet Earth. We’re hydrogen-breathers at a distance, via intermediaries. But we’re also oxygen-breathers, and perhaps that’s what makes the difference!

Time Saving

What do magic and technology have in common? They save us time.

 

Do they really? Is that a good thing? Maybe, and I’m not sure.

 

Let’s tackle magic first. Need something or need something done? Just cast a spell! With reference to the Harry Potter books: Yes, you’ll need a wand to channel your energy, the correct incantation, and likely sufficient energy or will in yourself. Assuming you’re successful, you could cast Accio, the summoning spell, whenever you need something. To make something bigger, just cast Engorgio! To generate a protective shield, Protego would be very useful. And if you forgot your car keys, there’s always Alohomora. Or if you’re a car thief, that could also work. Unless the locks are electronic – then your magic might not work.

 

I picked these spells because they’re not the easiest to replicate immediately with technology. I suppose you could connect Siri/Alexa to a drone to bring you stuff, although you’ll have to describe it exactly so that your Internet of Things system can do what you ask. Resizing objects is no easy task. Nor is creating a force field out of thin air – you don’t want to be lugging around a thick heavy shield or wearing heavy armor. And for breaking locks, I suppose there are manual and more destructive ways to do so. But then what’s the point of the elegant magic spell?

 

Today we have technology that can easily replicate Lumos. Just carry your cellphone around and make sure it’s charged. Your phone can also point you around in a maze. Nor do we need Floo powder for a fireside chat. I suppose there are various ways to Stupefy a foe. Chucking your phone at an enemy would certainly be a surprising move. Roomba is a low-level version of Scourgify, but more advanced robots could do much more. The one unlikely thing we’ll ever be able to do that I would personally love is to teleport physically so I can save traveling time. Ah, that would be wonderful! Teleporting myself virtually isn’t interesting – it’s exhausting, as we learned through Zoom fatigue.

 

Since I’m a Muggle living in what seems like a totally non-magical world, I’ll just have to make do with technology. I’m personally very thankful for electricity and piped running water in my home. Not sure how I would manage without them. Well, everything else would just take up so much more of my time. Just the basic need to keep myself alive by eating food and drinking water, and not getting myself killed while doing it, isn’t easy. I’m happy not to be a hunter-gatherer. But does this mean I have more time to spare? Well, maybe, because I am privileged to have the cushy job of a tenured professor at a university in the U.S. of A.

 

Let’s explore how technology has helped in my work. The research portion is easy to see because I’m a computational chemist. Back when I was doing my Ph.D., hardware and software were nowhere as advanced as today. I could finish the computations for my entire dissertation an order of magnitude faster today. Maybe more. But my thinking wouldn’t have been any faster. Today, I can quickly churn out “results”. I can write scripts to analyze those results more quickly. But are they meaningful? I still the time to mull over things, and my brain hasn’t gotten any faster. If anything, I might feel more rushed in my thinking with the results whizzing in. Previously, I took the time to read and think while waiting.

 

In teaching, it is unclear if technology has saved me time. I could probably teach chemistry just as effectively without most of the technology, as long as I could still meet with students and we have basic writing implements. I first started teaching in a classroom with no computers or internet. Some didn’t even have an overhead projector (a useful technology back then). Today, I’ve learned how to teach online with Zoom, the learning management system, and the online textbook and homework management systems. Are my students learning more? Are they learning better? I think that depends on them more than it does on me and the technology that I use. Am I glad that I have a computer with word processors, spreadsheets, slide-creating-presenting tools, and e-mail? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Have they saved me time? Sort of, but it’s not like I’ve found increasingly more time to do research over the years. Maybe, it’s because service/administration has gone up in time – the paperwork, the trainings, the meetings… ugh.

 

Technology, like magic, promises to be a time-saver. But is it truly time-saving where it counts? And is time-saving worthy to be counted? Is focusing on how efficient I’m going to be, and how I can do more in less time, a good thing? I’m not so sure. If I’m trying to save time on something, it’s likely because I consider that activity a drudgery. Housecleaning is a drudgery. Commuting is a drudgery. Grading problem sets can be a drudgery, which is why online homework systems have proliferated. But I don’t consider my teaching time in the classroom or my office hours a drudgery. In fact, I’m surprised how quickly the time passes. (I really enjoy teaching! It’s less clear if students enjoy learning chemistry.) Whenever I’m doing something I love doing, time is the least of my worries. I forget about time. Especially if I get lost in a good book. I’m not going to speed-read Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. I’m not going to fast-forward through an excellent movie. I’m not going to gobble my food down. I’m not going to rush some wonderful interactions with friends and family. When you’re in the zone, no one cares about saving time.

 

In Peter Kreeft’s book, The Philosophy of Tolkien, he has a requisite section on ethics titled “How does evil work?”

 

[Evil] works only by our cooperation. It removes our freedom, but only freely; we forge the bonds of our slavery with the strength of our freedom. The Ring’s temptation, in one word, is “addiction”… Pleasure is only the sugar on the bait of power. Any addict knows that. “I’ve got to have it” is his philosophy. Not I but It is the Master. Gollum is believeable because we know him; … he is every addict, which means every man… We are weak because we no longer understand the power of weakness; we no longer understand that the greatest power is in self-abnegation, renunciation, and martyrdom… But our heart still understands this power; that’s why we recognize it when we meet it in Tolkien… [who] makes clear the connection between addiction and technology in the strategy of temptation. We scientific magicians demand not only gratification but instant gratification.

 

Kreeft goes on to quote from Tolkien’s letters how the basic motivation for technology (which he called “machinery”) and magic is “immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result”. There’s an insightful discussion contrasting Denethor and Gandalf and how pride, power, doom, the unforgivable sin (“impenitence… because it will not be forgiven”), immortality, life, and death. (It’s all in section 10.4, pp188-191, for the interested reader.) Reading it reminded me why I enjoyed the Harry Potter series as much as I did. While Rowling is not as masterful as Tolkien, there are common underlying threads at the crux of both stories. Kreeft will say it better than me so I’ll quote him in closing.

 

The false immortality that the heroes must renounce comes from the false magic of the Ring, which is unlimited power and even the power over death. Power over death is the power to extend your present self and will indefinitely, not only in space… but also into time… The Ring turns God’s good gift of life into the object of an evil addiction. The Ring, of course, gives only a false immortality – that of the Undead, the Nazgul – just as it gives a false power and a false magic, for ultimately the Ring is the false Christ, the Antichrist. He is the world’s ultimate drug dealer.

 

The quest for efficiency, for time-saving measures, may seem neutral or even a possible good. But it is also a possible evil under certain conditions. Are we addicted to our own scientific magic of technology? We should pause lest we enthroning immediacy and convenience as our new gods.

Is Magic Real?

While I’ve greatly enjoyed the Harry Potter series, the inspiration for this blog, and have re-read the series several times, my all-time favorite realm is J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-Earth, famous from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I’ve regularly played boardgames based on Tolkien’s book, but have yet to play any of the commercial Harry Potter boardgames. Tolkien’s world and the way magic is displayed is subtle, not overt, and giving it the time it deserves could take volumes of writing and thinking. I’m much too lazy for that – hence, I blog instead of writing detailed articles. Or better yet, I just read and write about someone else’s thoughts.

 

For those who would like a little more meat in exploring Tolkien’s world and, more importantly, the world-view that emanates from the characteristics of Middle-Earth, I highly recommend Peter Kreeft’s The Philosophy of Tolkien. I read it probably fifteen or so years ago, but am finding it refreshing to work my way through it once again. Kreeft is a philosopher, so that’s where the emphasis lies, but he’s an excellent and engaging writer with thought-provoking ideas.

 

What makes Tolkien so beloved, argues Kreeft, is that his world seems true, deep and real at its very core. Tolkien’s masterful use of descriptive language certainly helps, and there is something about creative art that so moves us. It’s magical in the deeper non-spellcasting sense. In his chapter on metaphysics, Kreeft distinguishes art and science:

 

Art is very different from science in that it creates worlds; it creates meaning and beauty and forms and structures and natures, while science discovers them. In science, the world is the standard for our ideas about it. If we believe the earth is flat, we are wrong. But in art, it is the reverse: the artist’s ideas are the standard for the world he creates. For example, in Tolkien’s world, Elves are tall and formidable… In art, the world conforms to the creative idea; in science, the idea conforms to the world. Truth in science is the reverse of truth in art. If God created the universe, all science is reading God’s art.

 

Now as a chemist, I beg to differ with Kreeft about his distinction. Chemists delight in both discovery and creation (by synthesizing new molecules and materials). But I agree that chemistry as a science has certain strictures in what can be created (at accessible temperatures and pressures). I also suspect that art – truly great art – has strictures of a sort. There’s something about it that “rings true”. Kreeft will say it better than I can.

 

It is because we look at the things in the universe in this Platonic way that we can rank them. For example, one lion can seem truer, more lenone than another (say, a weak, scruffy, cowardly lion)… [that] is false,, fake, or inauthentic, like counterfeit money. Counterfeit money is as physically real as real money, yet in the most important way it is not real: it does not conform to the [Platonic] Idea of money. In the case of money… it is man-made, temporal and changeable. But in the case of… a real lion… all cultures and all individuals judge a cowardly lion to be less authentic, less true, less real, than he ought to be… and Tolkien’s Elves are more real, more elvish than any other writer’s elves have ever been. We can’t help believing in them.

 

I’m inclined to agree with Kreeft, although I’m likely as biased as he is in that I love the books and continue to enjoy re-reading them over and over again. They have a ring of authenticity that most fiction I’ve read does not. (Admittedly, I don’t read much fiction.) Kreeft will go on to explain why this is, but you’ll have to read his book to enjoy it for yourself. Instead I will move on to the title of today’s blog post, and also the title of a section in Kreeft’s chapter on cosmology: Is magic real? Kreeft begins his argument in the following way:

 

In Tolkien’s cosmology, as in all pre-modern cosmologies, everything is more alive. Where the modern cosmology reduces the life of a dog to the life of a complex machine, Tolkien’s cosmology expands the life of a mountain (“cruel Caradhas”) to something like the life of an animal. Nothing is mere matter. Nothing is ‘mere’ anything. Reductionism is repudiated. More than that: there is so much life in things that we would call it ‘magic’.

 

He’s preaching to the choir, given my growing disillusionment with the reductionist paradigm in the sciences. Not that it isn’t useful, but we’re limiting ourselves as scientists by being locked into the paradigm. But then Kreeft makes a surprising turn:

 

Magic is potency, and power. But there are two very different kinds of magic… not just different, but opposed… and our civilization is in crisis because of the war between these two kinds of magic. One kind of magic, Enchantment, is our healing, and the other – the kind exemplified by the Ring – is our destruction… The magic of enchantment means entering the holy city of beauty, truth, and goodness and letting it conquer you. Ultimately it means letting God conquer you, since beauty, truth, and goodness are divine attributes; they are what God is. But the magic of the ‘laborious, scientific magician’ (that is, technology or, rather, the philosophy that makes ‘Man’s conquest of Nature’ by technology the summum bonum) means playing God, like Sauron.

 

I’ve heard this diatribe before. Sauron represents the evils of technology and machinery, and we need to turn away from this to embrace the good. In one sentence, I’ve simplified or reduced it – and Kreeft would argue that I shouldn’t do this so he spends some time clarifying the relationship between the two magics. They have much in common.

 

Both are natural to man. Both can be either good or (when misused) evil. Technology becomes evil when it is turned from a means to an end. Fantasy becomes evil when it is turned into a create-your-own-reality philosophy. The ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy… is the first mark of sanity… The two magics have… a common origin in the power of abstraction that makes possible the invention of the adjective…

 

But their ends are different. Enchantment is surrendering “the soul to the beauty of nature” while Technology seeks “the conquest of nature by power”. Kreeft argues that the key has to do with time.

 

Technological magic works immediately. It attempts to reduce the gap between desire and satisfaction… [but] plunges us deeper into the shadow because time becomes more and more important to us, and more problematic, as we become more technologized… the chief effect… has been to destroy leisure rather than enhance it. No one has any time anymore. But Enchantment makes time irrelevant. The Hobbits lose track of time in Tom Bombadil’s house, as we do when we read The Lord of the Rings…

 

Magic is real. But its effect on us as humans may be quite different depending on which magic we embrace. We’ve built ourselves into a technological system prison from which escape will prove very difficult. Enchantment feels like a waste-of-time in today’s go-getter world, but all that striving may be for a castle built on a foundation of sand rather than bedrock. I’m reminded of the need to slow down. But it’s not just a matter of pace-of-life. Kreeft will go on to argue for the paradoxical philosophy of self-giving choices exemplified by Frodo and Sam, the ringbearers, in contrast to the self-serving Gollum and Sauron – consumed by their own inward desires, they become slaves, inhuman, and lose reality in the process.

Prompt Reflections

A year ago, I decided to modify my Discussion Board participation in my G-Chem classes to feature weekly prompts that the students respond to. You can read what prompted me to do so in this post from a year ago. It’s a way for me to engage students outside of class, is not onerous for the students (the minimum response to weekly prompts is 120 words), and hopefully it gets the students thinking a little more broadly about the foundations of what they’re learning.

 

Here are my G-Chem 1 prompts from last semester along with minor commentary from me. They are still somewhat haphazard, but I expect to improve coherence now that I’ve done a year’s worth covering both semesters. Week 1 was us introducing ourselves. I had a short list of “who am I” questions, and started the ball rolling by answering those questions myself. We also skipped the week of Thanksgiving since that was only a half-week, and students needed a break.

 

Week 2: Analysis

The process of breaking something down into its smaller parts is called Analysis. We've discussed atoms as being the fundamental parts that make up molecules and matter. Can matter be fully described by "the sum of its parts"? That is by breaking something down into its fundamental parts, can you understand what it is (or how it works), or might you lose some understanding in the process? Provide an example as you think about these questions. (If it's helpful: The reverse of Analysis is Synthesis. Another way of thinking about these questions is whether Analysis and Synthesis are the exact opposite of each other.) Like many of the questions you'll see in subsequent weeks, there is no easy right or wrong answer to these questions - that's why this is a discussion!

 

I was a tad ambitious in my Week 2 prompt, but it did set the stage for what we were going to be doing for much of the semester, and how to think about scientific activity in more general terms. I was likely influenced by my summer reading about the limits of reductionism, even though it remains extremely useful as a process in science. Students were a little stumped, but there were some interesting and thoughtful responses.

 

Week 3: Elements

On the first day of class, we talked about the simplicity and versatility of Aristotle's Four Elements (Earth, Water, Air, Fire), but modern chemistry has chosen a different (possibly messier and less versatile) way to classify elements. Today, scientists have "identified" close to 120 elements. And although isotopes exist, we have chosen not to label them as different elements. What do you think about the way elements are classified? Could different choices have been made? Feel free to speculate on creative possibilities.

 

This got students thinking a little more strategically about the periodic table and how one might represent information. Most students said they liked the periodic table and thought it was both compact and useful although they had trouble articulating why specifically. Most had simply never thought about it and found it interesting to ponder why isotopes aren’t specifically included and there were some suggestions of how to do so.

 

Week 4: Otherworldly Vision

If life was found on other worlds, would organisms have evolved eyes? (Why or why not?) If an organism did evolve an apparatus for vision, what might their world look like to them and how might that view be different from alien human Earthling visitors to their world (if interstellar tourism was safe and possible)?

 

I had just talked about the electromagnetic spectrum in class and I ended with discussing the solar spectrum of our sun, what we consider visible light and how different organisms (for example those that lived in caves) may have receptors for slightly different wavelengths. My last slide was a speculative image with an artist’s impression of different colored flora on a different planet. I threw in some speculation about red-dwarf suns and habitable planets. Students found this prompt interesting.

 

Week 5: Fuzzy Knowledge

Chemistry is all about the behavior of electrons in atoms. While we know the mass and charge of an electron, it turns out there are many other things we don't know, for example its size, or where it is located in an atom (Bohr was wrong about the orbits). It's not just that we don't know, but we fundamentally CANNOT know (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). We can only describe electrons in probabilistic terms. What do you think about this "fuzziness" in our knowledge of electron behavior? Is it strange that we know the mass and charge but can't know other things?

 

Students didn’t like the idea of Heisenberg Uncertainty’s Principle. I wouldn’t have known this from our class discussions without asking students their opinion in this prompt. Most thought that we simply haven’t invented the appropriate technology yet – this is a rational and reasonable response given the strangeness of the idea of what we know and do not know about fundamentals. So, while there wasn’t much probing discussion, I learned something from reading their responses.

 

Week 6: Quantum Rules

Last week we discussed quantum numbers, their rules, and their restrictions and how those might have led to the arrangement of the periodic table (that's not what happened historically but it's interesting to think about). If one of the quantum number rules were different, how might that change the arrangement of the periodic table? Would there be shorter or longer rows? Might the shape change? Suggest a speculation!

 

This was less interesting engagement than I anticipated. There were some good ideas, but most were very routine with a minor perturbation. Little depth for the most part. But a small minority of intrepid students did engage in a way I was hoping.

 

Week 7: Elements Again

Choose an element in the Periodic Table. It cannot be one that someone has already posted (i.e. skim through the list before you write). You should say something about how the element got its name, how it was "discovered" (or synthesized), and at least one other fact about it that you found interesting and WHY you found it interesting.

 

I worded this prompt, not just to get students to do a little web-surfing (Wikipedia mostly), but also to read or at least skim the responses of others. This did happen in previous weeks, but not always. The very last part – asking students to articulate why they found something interesting – allowed the students to share something about themselves, and that’s what I found most interesting to read. (I already knew a lot about the history of the elements, I highly recommend this book for the interested reader!)

 

Week 8: Two Surprises

We've made it through the first half of the semester, hurrah! Time for a short reflection: What are two things you found surprising from CHEM151 in the first half of the semester and why?

 

Of all the prompts, this was the one I enjoyed reading most because of the interesting and varied student responses. One recurring theme was students mentioning that in their previous (high-school level) chemistry courses, the electron wasn’t perceived by them as being so central to chemistry. I talk about electrons all the time in class, and the students picked up on it – in hindsight that’s not surprising. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle came up a few times, as did wave-particle duality. A number of students commented about the depth and pace of the class (i.e., deeper and faster-moving), and seeing some topics they learned in high-school illuminated in much more detail. Some were pleasantly surprised that chemistry was not as bad as other people had told them, even though it was still hard. (I’m upfront about it being a challenging subject.) All that being said, here’s my favorite student response:

 

“One thing I found surprising about CHEM151 in the first half of the semester is how many open, unanswered questions come from answering one question. Out of all the questions we pose and can solve in chemistry, there are hundreds of unanswered questions that develop from that one answered question. I cannot seem to wrap my mind around how much we do not know about our universe. One other thing I find surprising is how long it takes us to discover and solve new answers. Out of all the years on this planet, it has taken decades to solve questions and the main question about how does the universe work has not been solved. It takes forever to solve the questions asked on this planet, so how long will it take until we finally understand our planet, let alone our universe or other planets?”

 

Week 9: Covalent Life

While living organisms utilize metals, the vast majority of compounds are covalent, formed from non-metals and predominantly C, H, O, N (with smaller amounts of S and P). Carbon, in particular, forms the backbone of almost all these compounds. Life predominantly uses only a few elements in the periodic table. Any thoughts or speculations as to why this might be? Is there something special about covalent compounds, or about carbon? Is there something puzzling about this?

 

Probably a bit too ambitious, and not enough background provided by me. There was some discussion from the students about valency, but not much about localized bonds, relative bond strengths, etc. I probably hadn’t provided enough background to tackle this beyond the superficial. I used to talk a little more about this in class, but last semester I ran out of time during my bond energy class activity.

 

Week 10: Structure/Function

Generally speaking, in chemistry, the thinking is that Structure determines Function. You analyze the structure first, and use that as the basis to determine how the molecules/compounds will behave and what properties they will exhibit. In biology, it's the other way around: Function determines Structure. You start with the function and use that as a basis analyze the structure to learn how it evolved to support the function. To throw in a third category, for human-made ("engineered") objects usually referred to as Artifacts, we (humans) have a function in mind before designing a structure to support the function - although sometimes we can be quite creative and use an existing structure for a different and possibly novel function that was unanticipated. What do you think about this?

 

This is a broad question I’m still puzzling over but I decided to throw it out to the students to see what they thought. There’s a range of student interests in my class. Many of the students are taking biology but there is a small yet significant contingent of engineers. A number of students provided good examples and analogies for their arguments. Our in-class chemistry examples had all consisted of “structure determines function/properties” – part of my emphasizing that chemistry is about explaining macroscopic (and even some microscopic) observations from nanoscopic atomic or molecular level structural information.

 

Week 11: A Chemical Reaction

Write one balanced chemical reaction (that involves bonds being made and broken). For each substance in the chemical equation, state (1) whether it is covalent, ionic, or metallic, and (2) whether it is a solid, liquid, gas, or in aqueous solution, under the conditions of the reaction. Then in a couple of sentences, tell us why you think this reaction is interesting -- presumably why you chose it. The reaction you choose should not already have been chosen by a previous student.

 

I was likely in a rush when writing the above prompt and hadn’t given much thought to how to tie in stoichiometry and chemical reactions that we were doing that week. Not much to say here.

 

Week 12: Compounds

Today in class I mentioned that one of the easiest and most general ways to figure out the chemical formula of a compound, and thus the ratio of its elements within that compound, is to burn it. Respond to one or more of the following questions (you don't have to respond to all of them): What do you think about this? Why might my statement be true (or under what conditions)? Might there be any limitations to this method? Are there alternative methods you can think of that would help us do this (perhaps for a more specific or limited class of compounds)? Why might anyone care?

 

Hah! Students were surprised and intrigued by my proclaiming that burning was one of the most efficient ways of figuring out chemical composition. Some thought that it only worked for covalent compounds, allowing me to chime into the discussion of how it might work for ionic or metallic solids.

 

Week 13: Evaluation

Before answering this week's prompt, first go fill out your Student Survey of Educational Experience at the link below for this class. It should only take about 10+ minutes. Then, come back here and let me know how you feel about the format of our weekly Discussion Board prompts. This is something new I've been doing since last year and I've been tweaking the format each semester partly based on student feedback. If there's something you liked, or something you thought could be done better, write your comments below so I can take them into account when planning my course next semester. (For this week's prompt, there won't be a length minimum, so if you didn't have any strong feelings either way you can just write one sentence to that effect and I'll count it.)

 

In short, students responded positively to the prompts. Many didn’t feel strongly about them and were upfront about liking a low-key way to earn free points for not too much work. A few enjoyed the brain-tickling broad questions. Some mentioned that it added to a community feel to the class and hearing, or in this case, reading their classmates’ thoughts and opinions. That was enough to make me continue doing this, although I need to tighten up some of the prompts. I also had a decent response rate on my evaluations, having prompted the students to do them without using any class time for it.

 

Week 14: Chemistry Everywhere

Last discussion board prompt! Pick a career/job/gig that illustrates how chemistry might play a role. This may be something you're personally interested in or something you think would be cool even though you wouldn't make a career out of it. While there are many careers that clearly feature chemistry (medicine, pharmaceuticals, materials, batteries, environment, etc.), feel free to be creative and come up with a job that might not yet exist. Hopefully after you've all had your say, we will see chemistry everywhere! I'll start the ball rolling.

 

This last one was prompted by discussions in our department meeting about whether we are losing majors and whether students are just not aware of what they can do with a degree in chemistry or biochemistry. And since students will probably spend some time over the winter break thinking about their major (for those who were still undecided), I thought it would be interesting. I started the ball rolling with an imagined “4D Video Game Designer” to get the creative juices rolling. Some students picked things within their major of interest (many in science or engineering) but several branched out and picked things they wouldn’t likely do themselves, but thought would be interesting to imagine.

 

We’ll see how things go this coming semester! We’re starting remote for the first couple of weeks so the online engagement will be more important. I hope we are able to quickly and smoothly transition back to in-person. Students just seemed happy to be back in-person last semester. Me too!

The Bicameral Mind

It’s not often that a boardgame motivates me to read a book, especially one as strange as The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. It’s an ambitious book. Very, very ambitious! I don’t recall when I last read something that aims of such all-encompassing flavour, and Jaynes is a flowery writer and knows how to turn a phrase.

 

Jaynes attempts to answer one of the deepest questions humans have of themselves: What is consciousness and how did it arise? His theory is that not too long ago, we didn’t have the consciousness we experience today. Instead we had bicameral minds, where the right-side of our brain housed a God-like voice that spoke with authority and engendered immediate obedience. Sounds crazy? It’s a fringe idea, but Jaynes does a masterful job in bringing together multiple threads to bolster his case. Neuroscience and psychology are presented as key witnesses, although this was the mid-1970s, and our knowledge in these areas was limited (it still is!) and heavily influenced by behaviourism. Jaynes also draws from ancient literature, archaeology, history, medicine, and the arts.

 

I don’t buy Jaynes’ theory, even though I enjoyed reading it and his book made me think hard about his thesis. But given my own interests in archaeology and history, and having read many of the “classical” works that you’d encounter in a Western Civ liberal arts curriculum, it feels like he creates a Kipling-esque “Just So” story. A marvelous story with many threads, no doubt, but it has the blinkered feel of interpreting one’s observations through the axiom that a bicameral mind was the precursor to present consciousness. And Jaynes does bring up some puzzles – the most interesting has to do with why the Incan empire collapsed with arrival of the Spaniards. This is “explained” as a bicameral empire not understanding deceit, meeting the conscious conquistadors and mistaking them for God-like authoritative voices.

 

Jaynes ties modern observations of hallucination, schizophrenia, hypnosis, Tourette’s syndrome, even dreaming, as clues to the bicameral age prior. Then of course, there’s religion. In the Origins boardgame, the Age of Instinct gives way to the Bicameral Age before proceeding to the Age of Faith, and finally the Age of Reason. This follows Jaynes’ theory that the flickers of consciousness, brought about by the tremendous stress of “losing the God-like auditory hallucinations” lead inexorably to a transfer of authority to what we now call religion. The major religions are also all-encompassing world-views. You see and interpret things differently through the eyes of faith. Heck, Jaynes even thinks that the ancients spoke in poetry, that the Iliad represents humans as bicameral, that language preceded consciousness, and that law-like codes mediated the transition out of bicamerality, softening its blow. He even has an explanation for why modern science arose from all of this. You might think this all sounds crazy, but looking at it through Jaynes’ eyes, it hangs together as its own system. There are problems, of course, but Jaynes mostly side-steps them for further study.

 

There are several things in Jaynes book that caught my attention. He uses the analogy of a map-maker versus a map-reader in relation to how consciousness “works” in generating a model of the world around us which we then “use”. Since I’ve been thinking about choices that one makes in a model, I particularly liked the map-maker analogy. The map-maker has to choose which features are being highlighted, which are being simplified, and how to represent them adequately depending on how they might be used. As an educator, I think of myself as a map-maker. Sometimes I ask students to generate “mind-maps”, but it made me wonder whether there should be a mixture of presenting and regenerating such maps in a more purposeful way.

 

Another point in the book is the distinction between recognition and recall. In my quizzes and exams, or when I’m posing questions, sometimes I’m testing for recognition and sometimes for recall. How our brains retrieve responses to these are, I think, slightly different. It made me consider how much of my final exam is aimed at recognition and how much at recall – and have I been preparing the students appropriately? Online homework self-graded systems are good at testing recognition, not so good at testing recall (or at least grading it). Whenever I read anything, my educator hat is always on!

 

Finally, two other quick things that caught my attention and that I’m likely to ponder more and maybe even explore in a future blog post: (1) Rolling dice or casting lots wasn’t about “chance” for the bicameral mind, it was invoking the fate of the gods. I should definitely think about that when playing boardgames – it might bring out an interesting element! (2) The chapter on hypnosis discusses the factors that make one more or less susceptible, and I started thinking about how the Imperius Curse works in the Harry Potter series (at least a non-ultrasonic version). That may be an easy spell to cast on a bicameral species to get them to do your bidding.

 

I had hoped that reading Jaynes book would excite me about playing more of the Origins boardgame, but that hasn’t been the case yet. Maybe it’s because I need to be preparing for the new semester and my mind is elsewhere.